The government was on the line for the pensions. It was cheaper to bring the car companies back to profitability rather than take the hit via pension insurance.

I get that, but we didn't have to bail out the UAW along with the pension plan. That was nothing more than a gratuity given to the UAW by a sitting Democrat president, and it was akin to giving them a 7 billion dollar kick back. SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS... That's ridiculous. That's seven THOUSAND MILLION.

Blueskies wrote:

I really doubt this. The European economy is continuing to collapse. Fiat is actually losing money while Chrysler is profitable, and Sergio bought a house here. They also said they wanted to merge with a third car company (which I would guess would be an Asian company).

Sergio also said that he's open to moving the company HQ, and moving the company HQ could save millions in tax revenue. Italy's corporate tax rate is 31.4% in the US it is currently 35%, and the Dems are talking about raising it (remember, they're part of the 1% of those EVIL BASTARDS CONTROLLING THE WEALTH!!!). Based on their current income levels Chrysler would pay $2.6 billion dollars in taxes under US tax law. Under Italian tax law Chrysler would pay $2.3 billion dollars. That's a 300,000,000 difference. Three hundred million dollars in additional corporate profits if Chrysler simply moves its HQ over seas. Who cares if Sergio has a house here... He can have his house here AND move the company HQ.

Blueskies wrote:

But you do bring up an interesting point: calling ANY corporation an American/Japanese/Italian company is foolish. Publicly traded companies are owned by the shareholders, and the shareholders can be of any nationality. If I owned Toyota stock, when they pay a dividend, I get that money. The money doesn't flow back to the mother country necessarily. That's disingenuous, old fashioned thinking that is no longer true in a globalized economy.

That said, when the Big 3 do well, southeast Michigan benefits, but the USA as a whole is no better off from Ford profiting or Toyota profiting.

Not true. It matters because a corporation pays its corporate tax not where it does its manufacturing, but according to where its HQ is located. HUGE difference.

March 7th, 2012, 6:02 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

regularjoe12 wrote:

why not ford Blue?

RJ - The ONLY reason that Ford didn't need a bailout is because they mortgaged virtually everything, even the trademark rights to their logo for something like $300 million dollars, and they did it before the cash crisis. The ONLY thing that Ford did right was ask for their loans before GM and Chrysler. They weren't more profitable, they didn't have better credit, etc. they JUST requested and received credit before GM and Chrysler before the lending market blew up. They really shouldn't be getting rewarded for their behavior and "not needing a bailout" as everyone gives them credit for.

Sergio also said that he's open to moving the company HQ, and moving the company HQ could save millions in tax revenue. Italy's corporate tax rate is 31.4% in the US it is currently 35%, and the Dems are talking about raising it (remember, they're part of the 1% of those EVIL BASTARDS CONTROLLING THE WEALTH!!!). Based on their current income levels Chrysler would pay $2.6 billion dollars in taxes under US tax law. Under Italian tax law Chrysler would pay $2.3 billion dollars. That's a 300,000,000 difference. Three hundred million dollars in additional corporate profits if Chrysler simply moves its HQ over seas. Who cares if Sergio has a house here... He can have his house here AND move the company HQ.

Why are so many companies located in Silicon Valley where the tax rates are crazy high? (hint hint: the importance of tax rates is vastly overrated)

Quote:

Not true. It matters because a corporation pays its corporate tax not where it does its manufacturing, but according to where its HQ is located. HUGE difference.

I work for a company that claims to be HQed in Delaware. Claims being the key word. We have companies in this country that are, for all intents and purposes, HQed in the US, but have a mailbox in Switzerland and claim to be a Swiss company. Plenty of companies funnel their money through overseas channels. 2/3 of all US corporations do not pay income tax. I think having a high corporate tax rate is very stupid, but your argument is just silly.

The day I arrive at your house and put a gun to your head and force you to purchase a Volt is the day I am "attempting to cram them down your throat". Until then, I am simply trying to give facts where some are missing. GM isn't producing these cars in high numbers and removing any other choices on the market, are they? Did they stop selling trucks? Did they stop selling sedans? So explain the supposed idea that this is being forced on anyone? Blu Rays and HDTVs were on the market before they were affordable to most people. Did you feel that they were being crammed down your throat?

And as for the "produce a car that gets 300 miles per charge and costs around $20k".....is ANY car company doing that right now? The answer is NO! That should be an indication that the technology to do that simply isn't there yet. But until then there are MANY people who want the OPTION of being able to have an advanced hybrid vehicle available to them. GM has produced that vehicle, and that's just not good enough.

I find it funny that people on this forum, the very same people who just a few years ago were bashing GM, Ford and Chrysler for making gas guzzling trucks and supposedly forcing those on the public (even though those vehicles were in HIGH demand), are now condemning GM for the Volt. ALL HAIL TOYOTA for building a Prius, whose technology is behind that of the Volt, but let's kiss their badonkadonk anyways because they are Toyota. Let's bash GM for having a couple cars have fires that killed no one, but it's OK that Toyota had issues with their cars that killed people, and then tried to cover it up and hide behind the American legal system.

Let's face facts......GM, Ford and Chrysler will NEVER do anything right in your eyes for the simple fact that they are the "Big 3", and everyone knows the only thing they want to do is screw over the American Consumer and sell them absolute junk at the highest possible price.

I know it's been over a week since you've posted this, but put your big girl panties on. You sound just like steensn defending windmills through propaganda, bullshit, and lies. I know you work there and want to defend the product you helped develop, but get a grip. You're putting words into my mouth and making a fool out of yourself. Please stop before you embarrass yourself any further.

The truth is that Government Motors is attempting to cram the Volt down out throats through subsidies and the bully pulpit. If you're too stupid or biased not to see this, you're pretty much a lost cause. No matter how you attempt to spin it, I'm right and you're wrong, so deal with it. It is obvious to any impartial observer. As for the Blu Rays and HDTVs, they weren't subsidized or encouraged to be bought by the President from the bully pulpit, now were they? Two completely different situations, but I know that doesn't fit your agenda. Nice try, though.

My intention about the 300 miles per charge and $20K price tag comment was to illustrate what was economically viable and would draw interest from the average American consumer. Of course that car doesn't exist yet and that's why the American people are flipping the Volt the bird. It fails miserably by any definition of economically viable or creating interest from the American consumer. The sooner the idiots at Government Motors realize this, the better off they will be. But since they're shutting down production of that travesty for over a month, they may have just bought a clue or something. If they would spend less time promoting a piece of crap and instead devoted that energy toward increasing the range and decreasing the price of any future electric vehicle, they would be on the right track. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

The rest of your post is laughable. Show me one instance where I bashed any vehicle made by the Big Three other than that piece of crap Volt. You can't. Truth be told, I've always bought either GM or Chrysler, not foreign. I may have bashed the UAW since I hate unions, but that's as far as you'll get in that regard. Besides, I love gas guzzling trucks and really fast sports cars. Why would I bash those unless they were subsidized and promoted by a Marxist piece of excrement? The truth is that I wouldn't, since I'm not an EnviroNazi.

As I said before, build an affordable, decent range electric vehicle and people will buy it. Build the Volt and people will laugh in your face while they collect dust on dealer's lots. Once again, sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.

_________________

March 8th, 2012, 1:18 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

slybri19 wrote:

I know it's been over a week since you've posted this, but put your big girl panties on. You sound just like steensn defending windmills through propaganda, bullshit, and lies. I know you work there and want to defend the product you helped develop, but get a grip. You're putting words into my mouth and making a fool out of yourself. Please stop before you embarrass yourself any further.

No, sly, I think it's you who needs to get a grip. Simply because the government is offering subsidies and tax credits when someone purchases a Volt, that means it's being "crammed" down your throat? Give me a break, because you sound like a complete idiot with that. Do you drive a Volt? If not, it wasn't crammed down or up anything.

And I find it very interesting that, although those same tax credits are being offered for the purchase of other hybrid vehicles from other manufacturers, you FAIL to mention them in this dialogue. Who is biased now?

slybri19 wrote:

The truth is that Government Motors is attempting to cram the Volt down out throats through subsidies and the bully pulpit. If you're too stupid or biased not to see this, you're pretty much a lost cause. No matter how you attempt to spin it, I'm right and you're wrong, so deal with it. It is obvious to any impartial observer. As for the Blu Rays and HDTVs, they weren't subsidized or encouraged to be bought by the President from the bully pulpit, now were they? Two completely different situations, but I know that doesn't fit your agenda. Nice try, though.

Really?! The bully pulpit?! Explain that to me, please. Explain how a president that is receiving a very low approval rating mentioning the Volt is the "bully pulpit". He's not demanding anything, he's not a dictator (though I'm sure he fashions himself as one) and even the tax credits being offered haven't "forced" anyone to buy anything. More people purchased the Nissan Leaf last year. Subsidies offered on that one too. Why aren't you bashing that? Prius gets those tax credits, and Toyota has sold over a million of those in this country? Gonna mention that vehicle in the same breath? Or are you just so slanted against GM that you turn a blind eye to it? And let's talk bully pulpit...what do you think influences people to buy a vehicle more? A president saying he'd buy a Volt. The same president who has a very low approval rating, has pissed off many people due to his Healthcare agenda that was bribed through Congress, pissed off people because of his outlandish vacation spending by him and his wife, and has generally been the worst president in the history of our country. Would you call his endorsement the "bully pulpit", or would you say the same thing about having a multititude of celebrities showing up at numerous award ceremonies watched by millions across the country driving a Prius the "bully pulpit". Which of the two do you consider to be more influential to the car buyers in this country? Hearing an unpopular president talk about a Volt, or seeing a number of popular celebrities driving a Prius? Toyota has sold over a million Prius', and their initial claims for gas mileage were wildly exaggerated, but that's OK. GM sells less than 10,000 Volts, but it's being "crammed" down the throats of consumers.

If you can't see the ridiculous nature of your side, there's simply no helping you.

slybri19 wrote:

My intention about the 300 miles per charge and $20K price tag comment was to illustrate what was economically viable and would draw interest from the average American consumer. Of course that car doesn't exist yet and that's why the American people are flipping the Volt the bird. It fails miserably by any definition of economically viable or creating interest from the American consumer. The sooner the idiots at Government Motors realize this, the better off they will be. But since they're shutting down production of that travesty for over a month, they may have just bought a clue or something. If they would spend less time promoting a piece of crap and instead devoted that energy toward increasing the range and decreasing the price of any future electric vehicle, they would be on the right track. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Coming from a guy who doesn't work at GM, doesn't know what will be offered in the future, and how the Volt technology will be used and is being evolved, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. That "piece of crap" has won the Car of the Year award on two continents, not to mention a boat load of other awards for the technology alone, let alone the styling. If it were such a piece of crap, why are other car companies copying the technology (new Prius). If it is such a piece of crap, why has GM gotten inquiries to licensing the propulsion system from other vehicle manufacturers? Sometimes the truth hurts, that's true. It would help you to know it first, though.

slybri19 wrote:

The rest of your post is laughable. Show me one instance where I bashed any vehicle made by the Big Three other than that piece of crap Volt. You can't. Truth be told, I've always bought either GM or Chrysler, not foreign. I may have bashed the UAW since I hate unions, but that's as far as you'll get in that regard. Besides, I love gas guzzling trucks and really fast sports cars. Why would I bash those unless they were subsidized and promoted by a Marxist piece of excrement? The truth is that I wouldn't, since I'm not an EnviroNazi.

As I said before, build an affordable, decent range electric vehicle and people will buy it. Build the Volt and people will laugh in your face while they collect dust on dealer's lots. Once again, sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.

No car maker has built "an affordable, decent range electric vehicle", so why go on and on about GM not doing it? People aren't buying them now, that's true. So why is that such an issue for you? Your pay check doesn't depend on it. In truth, GM doesn't need the Volt to sell in high numbers, and they never planned on it doing so. It's not considered to be a "halo" vehicle, or a profit builder. It's a first step.

And did you ever think that one of the reasons people don't buy the Volt is that it is simply something that they have a hard time understanding. You'd be surprised at some of the untruths people believe about the Volt, such as it can't be charged in the rain? Yes, I actually heard someone say that at the AutoShow in 2011. And articles like the one that have spawned this discussion is yet another part of the problem. Uninformed people read it, thinking that this "journalist" must know what he's talking about, and accept what he says is truthful and factual, when it is NEITHER. And it is people like you who continue to compound the problem. You think the Volt is a POS, but have you driven one? Have you owned one? Do you even know anyone who has? Are you basing your OPINION on their OPINION, or are you simply spewing out anti-GM rhetoric because you don't like the fact that GM received money from the government? Ask yourself that question and try to be honest about it. I think you are using the Volt as a scapegoat target for your dislike of what the government did, and you know abso-fukking-lutely NOTHING about the car, at all. Other than it has a hefty pricetag and a person purchasing it gets a tax credit, I think you are in the dark about the technology behind it and how many companies wish they had come out with it first.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

March 8th, 2012, 10:25 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

A car company that took loans from the government.

A car company with a high priced electric vehicle.

A car company with an electric vehicle with battery issues.

GM? Think again....

Quote:

By Ben KlaymanMar. 8, 2012

A $100,000-plus Fisker Automotive luxury car died during Consumer Reports speed testing for reasons that are still unknown, leaving the struggling electric car startup with another blow to its image.

"It is a little disconcerting that you pay that amount of money for a car and it lasts basically 180 miles before going wrong," David Champion, senior director for the magazine's automotive test center, told Reuters.

Fisker has benefited from the publicity generated when actor Leonardo DiCaprio was handed the first Karma last summer and pop idol Justin Bieber received one as a gift this month.

The breakdown of the Consumer Reports car is more bad news for a company that already recalled some Karmas. Fisker also has changed its CEO and halted production over the past month as it seeks to renegotiate the terms of a $529 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Champion said since the magazine buys the cars it tests anonymously the company may not know.

In a statement, Fisker said it was assessing the source of the problem that caused its Karma plug-in hybrid to fail. Fisker dispatched two engineers Wednesday night to examine the car.

"It's important to note that with more than 400 Fisker Karma sedans already on the road in the U.S., we also have many satisfied customers who are enjoying daily commutes in their cars," Fisker said in the statement.

Under the microscope

Fisker has found itself under the microscope as its woes have mounted. In January, it halted Karma sales for four days to fix a software malfunction that at times triggered warning lights while temporarily freezing navigation systems.

In December, it recalled 239 Karmas due to a possible defect in batteries made by supplier A123 Systems that could cause a coolant fluid leak and electrical short circuit. The previous month, A123 reduced its full-year revenue outlook after Fisker unexpectedly cut orders.

The magazine bought the car new from a Connecticut dealer last Friday. On Wednesday, Consumer Reports engineers were just starting to calibrate the Karma's speed by driving 65 miles per hour down the magazine's test track in East Haddam, Conn., Champion said.

"During the gentle run down the track, a light on the dashboard came on," he said.

The speed test was completed despite the light on the control panel, but after it was parked, officials were unable to get the car restarted.

Champion, who called the Karma "gorgeous looking," said problems with new technologies are not surprising.

Federal safety officials opened an investigation last November into the safety of the battery pack in General Motors Co.'s Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric car after they uncovered fire risks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed its probe in January without finding any defects and expressing satisfaction with GM's remedies to better protect the lithium-ion battery pack.

Other testing

Consumer Reports has tested the Volt, which scored highly on the magazine's reliability surveys, as well as Nissan Motor Co.'s all-electric Leaf, Champion said.

The magazine was testing the Karma because it was deemed a more mainstream vehicle, he said. It has not tested any cars made by Tesla Motors Inc.

"The fact that it broke is not going to affect our testing," Champion said of the Fisker Karma. "It is going to delay possibly getting our testing done if it keeps on breaking. It's just an unfortunate delay in our evaluation."

The issue also will not affect Consumer Reports' reliability rating for the car because those scores are based on feedback from owners who subscribe to the magazine, Champion said.

"It can't be helpful, but it's one of those things," Champion said of the Karma's problems. "Cars break down, but you don't expect them to break down in the first couple of days."

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

March 9th, 2012, 11:58 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

m2karateman wrote:

A car company that took loans from the government.

A car company with a high priced electric vehicle.

A car company with an electric vehicle with battery issues.

GM? Think again....

Quote:

By Ben KlaymanMar. 8, 2012

A $100,000-plus Fisker Automotive luxury car died during Consumer Reports speed testing for reasons that are still unknown, leaving the struggling electric car startup with another blow to its image.

"It is a little disconcerting that you pay that amount of money for a car and it lasts basically 180 miles before going wrong," David Champion, senior director for the magazine's automotive test center, told Reuters.

Fisker has benefited from the publicity generated when actor Leonardo DiCaprio was handed the first Karma last summer and pop idol Justin Bieber received one as a gift this month.

The breakdown of the Consumer Reports car is more bad news for a company that already recalled some Karmas. Fisker also has changed its CEO and halted production over the past month as it seeks to renegotiate the terms of a $529 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Champion said since the magazine buys the cars it tests anonymously the company may not know.

In a statement, Fisker said it was assessing the source of the problem that caused its Karma plug-in hybrid to fail. Fisker dispatched two engineers Wednesday night to examine the car.

"It's important to note that with more than 400 Fisker Karma sedans already on the road in the U.S., we also have many satisfied customers who are enjoying daily commutes in their cars," Fisker said in the statement.

Under the microscope

Fisker has found itself under the microscope as its woes have mounted. In January, it halted Karma sales for four days to fix a software malfunction that at times triggered warning lights while temporarily freezing navigation systems.

In December, it recalled 239 Karmas due to a possible defect in batteries made by supplier A123 Systems that could cause a coolant fluid leak and electrical short circuit. The previous month, A123 reduced its full-year revenue outlook after Fisker unexpectedly cut orders.

The magazine bought the car new from a Connecticut dealer last Friday. On Wednesday, Consumer Reports engineers were just starting to calibrate the Karma's speed by driving 65 miles per hour down the magazine's test track in East Haddam, Conn., Champion said.

"During the gentle run down the track, a light on the dashboard came on," he said.

The speed test was completed despite the light on the control panel, but after it was parked, officials were unable to get the car restarted.

Champion, who called the Karma "gorgeous looking," said problems with new technologies are not surprising.

Federal safety officials opened an investigation last November into the safety of the battery pack in General Motors Co.'s Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric car after they uncovered fire risks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed its probe in January without finding any defects and expressing satisfaction with GM's remedies to better protect the lithium-ion battery pack.

Other testing

Consumer Reports has tested the Volt, which scored highly on the magazine's reliability surveys, as well as Nissan Motor Co.'s all-electric Leaf, Champion said.

The magazine was testing the Karma because it was deemed a more mainstream vehicle, he said. It has not tested any cars made by Tesla Motors Inc.

"The fact that it broke is not going to affect our testing," Champion said of the Fisker Karma. "It is going to delay possibly getting our testing done if it keeps on breaking. It's just an unfortunate delay in our evaluation."

The issue also will not affect Consumer Reports' reliability rating for the car because those scores are based on feedback from owners who subscribe to the magazine, Champion said.

"It can't be helpful, but it's one of those things," Champion said of the Karma's problems. "Cars break down, but you don't expect them to break down in the first couple of days."

Yet another example of the govt. "cramming" electric cars down our throats. How many hundreds of millions of dollars have to be spent on this debacle before you see it M2? IMO your love affair with GM and the Big 3 have blinded you to the point that you can't see the point(s) that Sly and I are making.

March 9th, 2012, 12:06 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Yet another example of the govt. "cramming" electric cars down our throats. How many hundreds of millions of dollars have to be spent on this debacle before you see it M2? IMO your love affair with GM and the Big 3 have blinded you to the point that you can't see the point(s) that Sly and I are making.

And what point is that? That the government should have no hand in the development of new technology? That them OFFERING (NOT cramming) tax credits on alternative propulsion vehicles is some form of big conspiracy to do......what? Before the first Volt hit the streets, our government was offering these tax credits to Prius purchasers.

I have no big love of our government. Personally, I don't like the idea of the tax credits. But if the government is giving them to one car company, it needs to be given to all. Wouldn't you agree?

So, if you want to bash our government for spending the money to allow tax credits, that's fine. But what I am attacking is the premise of the original article, and something sly further propogated. And that's the idea that the Volt is a POS that is inferior to the Prius, Tesla or Leaf. There were contents of the article that were simply not true, and I defy either of you to prove otherwise. Please, give it your best shot.....

And obviously your opinions and my opinion of what constitutes "cramming" something down someones throat is vastly different. I was of the idea that implying something is being "crammed down your throat" means it is being done against your will and allows you no choice in the matter. As I stated to sly before, the day I show up at your doorstep and put a loaded gun to your head and FORCE you to buy a Volt (or anyone else does), that is the day you can state it's being "crammed down your throat". Until then, you are free to choose which vehicle you want to buy, and have absolutely NO RIGHT to refuse anyone else their choice. If through their choice they get tax credits from the government, so be it. There are already gas guzzler taxes on some GM vehicles. I don't hear you two whining about any of that. It's OK for the government to regulate that, but not offer tax credits on hybrids?

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

March 9th, 2012, 1:30 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

m2karateman wrote:

And what point is that? That the government should have no hand in the development of new technology? That them OFFERING (NOT cramming) tax credits on alternative propulsion vehicles is some form of big conspiracy to do......what? Before the first Volt hit the streets, our government was offering these tax credits to Prius purchasers.

I have no big love of our government. Personally, I don't like the idea of the tax credits. But if the government is giving them to one car company, it needs to be given to all. Wouldn't you agree?

So, if you want to bash our government for spending the money to allow tax credits, that's fine. But what I am attacking is the premise of the original article, and something sly further propogated. And that's the idea that the Volt is a POS that is inferior to the Prius, Tesla or Leaf. There were contents of the article that were simply not true, and I defy either of you to prove otherwise. Please, give it your best shot.....

And obviously your opinions and my opinion of what constitutes "cramming" something down someones throat is vastly different. I was of the idea that implying something is being "crammed down your throat" means it is being done against your will and allows you no choice in the matter. As I stated to sly before, the day I show up at your doorstep and put a loaded gun to your head and FORCE you to buy a Volt (or anyone else does), that is the day you can state it's being "crammed down your throat". Until then, you are free to choose which vehicle you want to buy, and have absolutely NO RIGHT to refuse anyone else their choice. If through their choice they get tax credits from the government, so be it. There are already gas guzzler taxes on some GM vehicles. I don't hear you two whining about any of that. It's OK for the government to regulate that, but not offer tax credits on hybrids?

Its the technology that Sly and I have a problem with, period. That it's being paraded out there as if it is the "save all" to gas is just ridiculous. It's being mascaraed as "cleaner" and "cheaper" when it's not. I don't think that the Prius should get a tax credit and I don't think the Volt should get one either, nor the leaf, nor any other piece of poop that no one with a brain wants to drive.

Further, it's not just the tax credit. We've loaned something like $300 million to GM for the Volt project, and something like $539 million to Fisker, and God knows how much to other auto manufacturers. Our government is on the hook for more than one billion dollars, and they will seemingly lend willie nillie to anyone that claims to even want to try to take on the task... I know we're on the hook for some of Lotus' expenses as well.

The Govt. isn't "forcing me to drive" a Volt, but they're certianly forcing me to pay for them, and that's what I have an issue with. If they wanted to put a grant out there - $100 million dollars to the first company that develops an electric vehicle capable of 65mph at 300 mile range, that's fine with me. I'm all for incentives. I'm all for research and development, and I"m all for pushing the benchmark. But to put literally thousands of these things on the road, provide ridiculous tax credits (it's basically the government buying a portion of the car for you) for purchasing these things, provide ridiculous tax credits/loans to build charging stations in parking garages, provide ridiculous tax credits/loans to equip gas stations with charging stations, and to provide literally billions in loans to manufacturers that can't turn a profit IS TAKING MY MONEY AND FORCING THE TECHNOLOGY ON ME.

At some point you're not "letting the technology develop." At some point you're "forcing it," and we passed that point years ago.

March 9th, 2012, 1:44 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I don't think that the Prius should get a tax credit and I don't think the Volt should get one either, nor the leaf, nor any other

For your info, the 'regular' Prius has far surpassed its tax credit qualifications, they are no longer available / applicable; only the upcoming Plug-Ins will qualify (new technology). That said, what are your thoughts on the subsidies / tax credits Big Oil receives?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

piece of poop that no one with a brain wants to drive.

Really? More name calling? With all due respect, my wife and I do have brains and we enjoy driving our Prius on a daily basis, thankyouverymuch Stay classy wjb

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 9th, 2012, 2:07 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

TheRealWags wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I don't think that the Prius should get a tax credit and I don't think the Volt should get one either, nor the leaf, nor any other

For your info, the 'regular' Prius has far surpassed its tax credit qualifications, they are no longer available / applicable; only the upcoming Plug-Ins will qualify (new technology). That said, what are your thoughts on the subsidies / tax credits Big Oil receives?

wjb21ndtown wrote:

piece of poop that no one with a brain wants to drive.

Really? More name calling? With all due respect, my wife and I do have brains and we enjoy driving our Prius on a daily basis, thankyouverymuch Stay classy wjb

I really don't think you looked into, or researched your purchase very well. If you had, I think you would have ended up with a Focus, or similar good gas mileage, non-battery powered machine.

I'm all for dropping the energy subsidies, ALL of them, but I also think we should stop charging ridiculous fees for oil exploration, and oil excavation. From what I understand the money we give in "subsidies" pals in comparison to the amount of money these companies pay for the rights, permits, and exploration of oil - ALL of which LOWERS the price of oil for all of us.

Even worse than the money that we spend on the electric car, the wind energy subsidies really baffle me. Some members on here say that it's just "not developed enough" and that "all energy companies" needed a certain amount of startup money to get going, but Wind has been used for energy since the 1400s and has never proven very reliable/profitable. As a percentage of what is gained from each windmill in terms of production, and the possible effect that it could have on reducing our power supply, it just doesn't work in terms of numbers, at least not in my mind.

In some small instances, where entire towns can be serviced by a few off-site windmills, or in a couple of regions that are off of the grid and it would be tough to get power to, I understand, but as a part of our national energy policy, I really don't think there's enough there to justify the costs, and I don't see the return on the investment being possible.

March 9th, 2012, 2:22 pm

TheRealWags

Megatron

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12534

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I really don't think you looked into, or researched your purchase very well. If you had, I think you would have ended up with a Focus, or similar good gas mileage, non-battery powered machine.

LMAO Sorry, but I really do have to laugh at this because we traded in a Focus when we got the Prius. Focus MPG: 20-25 Prius MPG (so far): 45-50 Advantage Prius

_________________

Quote:

Detroit vs. EverybodyClowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 9th, 2012, 3:12 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

TheRealWags wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I really don't think you looked into, or researched your purchase very well. If you had, I think you would have ended up with a Focus, or similar good gas mileage, non-battery powered machine.

LMAO Sorry, but I really do have to laugh at this because we traded in a Focus when we got the Prius. Focus MPG: 20-25 Prius MPG (so far): 45-50 Advantage Prius

I don't know how many dead bodies you had in the trunk of your focus to get 20-25mph, but my Mom has had one for years and it gets about 28-32, and doesn't have a $10k battery in it, has actual full size tires, a real trunk, and a real back seat. Good luck with your Prius! We looked into getting her a new one when they first came out and the tax credit was available, but it just didn't' make sense financially. Even over the life of the car there was no way that we would have re-couped the difference in price, let alone the additional maintenance and mileage drop off after the battery starts depleting.

It certainly comes as no surprise to me that M2K sounds like a brain dead zombie repeating the talking points, rhetoric, and propaganda fed to him by his corporate overlords and masters.

And I'm only discussing the Volt in this thread because it's a thread about the Volt and I'm attempting to stay on topic. I've bashed Fisker in the Obama thread months ago and I'd be more than happy to trash the Leaf, Tesla, Prius, or any other non-viable green vehicle if anyone decides to start those threads, but there's much more hilarity available regarding the Volt. IMO, it's going to go down in history as the biggest clunker since the Edsel.

As for subsidies, I've repeated stated that I'm in favor of ending them for everything - cars, oil, gas, wind, solar, ethanol, farming, and anything else the government wants to get involved in. Allow the free market to work the way it was intended instead of the government being allowed to pick the winners and losers. I've always been consistent on this point.

Perhaps you don't feel that a failed President has much to offer from the bully pulpit, but there are plenty of useful idiots out there that do. I've only seen him promote the Volt and he did so again last week. Why isn't he doing the same with the Corvette, Camaro, Silverado, or Suburban? Where are the tax credits for those vehicles that I would atleast be interested in buying? I think we all know the answer to that one though.

I think it's pretty obvious that we're not gonna agree about the Volt. You work for Government Motors and had a hand in designing that piece of crap. I get it. You have every right to boast about it or to buy it if you wish, but I reserve the right to mock and ridicule it mercilessly if I so desire too. You love it. I hate it. You promote it. I bash it. This is not going to end well, but I think deep down inside, you know that I'm right.

And in my next post, I'm gonna post three recent articles making fun of that piece of crap that hardly anybody wishes to buy.